The Last Two Questions of the Prologue of Henry of Harclay

The Prologue of the commentary of Henry of Harclay on the Sentences of Peter Lombard consists of three questions, the first of which has already been edited by myself in collaboration with Christopher Schabel².

The second question, «Utrum theologia viatoris consideret Deum sub absoluta ratione deitatis vel sub aliqua ratione comparativa ut ratione glorificatoris vel huiusmodi», is found only in ms. Casale Monferrato, Seminario Vescovile, B. 2 (=C), ff. 6vb-9ra³, and the third, «Utrum illa scientia sit una», seems to begin only with C. But only a small part of this question treats the unity of science, because – after the principal arguments (§§ 1-7) – it is dedicated almost entirely to a quaestio incidentalis on whether theology is a practical or speculative science⁴.

This question and the last part of that on the unity of science survive also in another witness, namely ms. Vatican City, BAV, Vat. Lat. 13687 (=V)⁵, ff. 12vb-15rb. For quite some time it was believed that V preserved a copy of the Sentences commentary of Scotus⁶. The similarity between C (as Harclay commentary) and V (as Scotus’ probable commentary) has been known since Balic as regards to the first book⁷.

The attribution of the commentary, contained in V, to Scotus and not to Harclay finds support in two factors. The first is found in the Tabula quaestionum, placed at the end of the first book in V (f. 98ra-va). There the same scribe takes care to note that these questions are «ex Ordinatione eiusdem Duns Scoti extractae» (f. 98ra). The explicit of the Tabula reaffirms this belief: «Explicit tabula primi libri magistri venerabilis I. Duns Scoti de Ordine Minorum» (f. 98va). The second factor is found in the third question of the Prologue in V: in the edition that follows below, one can easily observe the limited similarity between C and V in this quaestio incidentalis (§§ 8-24). For notwithstanding the similarity in the first principal argument, C opens the question with two arguments for and one against (§§ 8-14), while V presents four arguments for and two against. Then, while C contains both a presentation of the opinion of Henry of Ghent and the beginning of a refutation (§§ 15-24), V introduces another quaestio incidentalis, giving the impression of there being two such questions. The title of this second incidental question, «Utrum theologia dicitur scientia practica ex ordine ad finem», arouses the interest of every Scotus scholar, since such a title, placed next to that of the first incidental question, cannot fail to bring to mind the structure of the last part of the Prologue of the Ordinatio, in which Scotus treats specifically the concept of praxis and theology as a practical science⁸. A quick check is enough to show there is a close correspondence between the text of V and that of Scotus, as handed down to us in the Vatican edition⁹. But immediately after in q. 3 § 25 this correspondence between V and the text of Scotus disappears up until the end of the Prologue, and V begins to coincide with C. This change brings with it an initial logical incoherence in V, since – without having introduced the opinion of Henry of Ghent – V joins C right in the middle of the refutation of Henry, taking this up instead of carrying one with the principal arguments of the second incidental question, which C simply omits. Our edition ends in the Prologue and therefore we cannot know whether this change persists; this goes beyond the scope of our contribution.

With this background, we can now examine some differences between C and V. The most important are the following: § 31 presents a common variant, since both witnesses cancel «videntur». In § 43, V cancels «minor» and adds in the margin «continent», which is present in the text of C, while in §§ 87, 93, and 120 it is C that adds in the margin what appears in the text of V; but in § 87 a non-common variant follows immediately after the interpolation of C. In...